I won't argue with you about "Obammy is toast with the majority of the American people," (although I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue with you at all given your obviously sharp wit and impeccable talent for vomitting selective cases in history out of context) since this is your, I'm certain, very well informed opinion.
Nobody is is "attempting or believing" that they have a say (read: legitimate vote) in our (US) elections. The poll by the magazine is simply an entertaining exercise to illustrate global opinion on American politics, not in any way designed or claiming to be accredited as valid by way of methodology or citation. Read: "Countries are self-reported by each voter."
Spare us, just calm down, make yourself a sandwich, turn FOX News back on and unplug your brain.

The perception that interests of other nations, arguably of the entire planet, are vitally affected by particular national elections is not new, but TE is giving it oxygen, so kudos for that. I think this will become clearer and more urgent with time. At the moment, many would say that the World has an over-riding interest in the outcome of the US election. That's the real biggie. But is it? Of course, given a plausibly-presented pretext, the US President -POTUS- could press a button and incinerate millions, creating a wasteland. But so could Putin, so could Netanyahu (200 nuclear WMD at least, many on submarines and possibly in orbit) and so, arguably, could M. Hollande, Mr. Cameron, Mr Hu Zon Next or even our good friends in Pakistan and India. The degrees of devastation that these parties can deal may differ, but as Nikita Sergeyevich said, "Why make the rubble bounce?" In the less dramatic global arena: human rights, economic well-being, arms limitation, POTUS is more constrained by forces like the Oil Companies, Big Pharma and AIPAC jerking Congress's chain than are his fellow potential doom-dealers. Nor do the fellow dd's all need as good a pretext as POTUS probably would (although others: Cameron, Hollande, might need a better). So how about a global interactive map of who should be leading Russia or Israel? Or Niger? (I see you have one [1] correspondent there. (Bet it's Amadou. Hey, Amadou! Whassup, man? Martin O'H.).

Senseless poll. Most of the world is more left-leaning than most of the US, so the rest of the world will always vote for the least-rightist guy anyway. Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, Clinton or Obama: really doesn't matter. But the rest of the world do not live in the USA, do not pay taxes in the USA and cannot vote in the USA. So: asking a Dutch guy like myself whom he would like to have as a president of another country is as useful as asking me my favorite sitcom character. As for us non-US citizens: our governments will just have to deal with whomever the US electorate choose to be their next president.

The perception that interests of other nations, arguably of the entire planet, are vitally affected by particular national elections is not new, but TE is giving it oxygen, so kudos for that. I think this will become clearer and more urgent with time. At the moment, many would say that the World has an over-riding interest in the outcome of the US election. That's the real biggie. But is it? Of course, given a plausibly-presented pretext, the US President -POTUS- could press a button and incinerate millions, creating a wasteland. But so could Putin, so could Netanyahu (200 nuclear WMD at least, many on submarines and possibly in orbit) and so, arguably, could M. Hollande, Mr. Cameron, Mr Hu Zon Next or even our good friends in Pakistan and India. The degrees of devastation that these parties can deal may differ, but as Nikita Sergeyevich said, "Why make the rubble bounce?" In the less dramatic global arena: human rights, economic well-being, arms limitation, POTUS is more constrained by forces like the Oil Companies, Big Pharma and AIPAC jerking Congress's chain than are his fellow potential doom-dealers. Nor do the fellow dd's all need as good a pretext as POTUS probably would (although others: Cameron, Hollande, might need a better). So how about a global interactive map of who should be leading Russia or Israel? Or Niger? (I see you have one [1] correspondent there. I bet it's Amadou. Hey, Amadou! Whassup, man? Martin O'H.).

Pardon my ignorance, or maybe yours for that matter, but since when were France, a country, let alone Ho Chi Mihn, Napolean, Attila the Hun, Stalin, Lenin, Gorbachev, Khruschev, etc electable leaders in their own countries? Or that the ENTIRE world would elect these people if they had the chance?

"As for us non-US citizens: our governments will just have to deal with whomever the US electorate choose to be their next president."

Based off your own admission, then it IS useful that we ask the world who they would prefer as President no? Especially since if your livelihoods, or your lives for matter are directly affected by the decisions Obama or Romney make.

I'm never quite sure what to make of these polls on TE. I realize they are making no attempt at accuracy, but it is obvious the readership of TE is not a good proxy for the American voting public. Even the votes in this poll attributed to America are nowhere close to the results of more scientific polls.

As anyone with half a wit about them can't take the results seriously, it seems the only point is to get people arguing in the comments section... What am I missing?

The same could be said of the UK. Or Australia. In fact, the same could be said of a pretty big number of countries. I believe even Luxembourg has never elected a dictator or mass murderer, and I'm sure you could find someone in Luxembourg who has crossed a desert to get there. Same for Switzerland.
What makes a country great ? All evidence points to one thing : money. I'll pass on the fact that wealth concentrates wealth, which attracts talent in turn. It's just that the same scenario was seen in the UK, Germany, France, China, Persia, Rome...
Wherever there was great wealth, people thought it was in their essence to be great. But given the state of Baghdad 800 years after its golden age, or Luoyang after 189, seems like they were wrong. They had their golden age, then they faded, often surged back, then faded again.
And what characterizes a golden age ? Cosmopolitanism. Chang'an, Baghdad, London, New York... all these places attracted immigrants by hordes, even at times where transportation was difficult and costly. But yeah, this time it's because you know, freedom. 'Murica. Not because flocking to wealth is just something people do for obvious reasons.
The persistent cognitive illusion that makes "this time" different makes for and incredibly amusing and saddening spectacle.